lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 02:25:09 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>, Su Tao <tao.su@...el.com>,
	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at
	kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()

On 10/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:30:29PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Or. perhaps we can change wait_woken
> > >
> > > 	-	set_current_state(mode);
> > > 	+	if (mode)
> > > 	+		set_current_state(mode);
> > >
> > >
> > > then rfcomm_run() can do
> > >
> > > 	for (;;) {
> > > 		rfcomm_process_sessions();
> > >
> > > 		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > 		if (kthread_should_stop())
> > > 			break;
> > > 		wait_woken(0);
> > > 	}
>
> > probably this makes more sense in this particular case...
>
> Right, in which case the below needs a different justification, but you
> said you were already thinking about it, so there must be something.
>
> And clearly it needs a changelog to begin with :-)

Yes, and the comments ;)

I showed this patch only to complete the discussion, I am not going to
send it now.

But thanks for the review!

> > +static void kthread_kill(struct task_struct *k, struct kthread *kthread)
> > +{
> > +	smp_mb__before_atomic();
>
> test_bit isn't actually an atomic op so this barrier is 'wrong'. If you
> need an MB there smp_mb() it is.

Hmm. I specially checked Documentation/memory-barriers.txt,

 (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
 (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();

     These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
     decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
     reference counting.  These functions do not imply memory barriers.

     These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
     value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Either you or memory-barriers.txt should be fixed ;)

> Again, comment is missing.

Yes, yes, we need the comments in set_kthread_wants_signal() and kthread_kill()
to explain that they set/check KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL/KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP in
opposite order, and we need mb's to separate STORE/LOAD.

And probably set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP) should be moved into kthread_kill()
to make this more clear. (along with __kthread_unpark(), but this reminds me
that __kthread_unpark() should die imho).

>
> > +	if (test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags)) {
> > +		unsigned long flags;
> > +		bool kill = true;
> > +
> > +		if (lock_task_sighand(k, &flags)) {
>
> Since we do the double test thing here, with the set side also done
> under the lock, so we really need a barrier above?

Yes, otherwise set_kthread_wants_signal() can miss a signal. And note
that the 2nd check is only needed to ensure that we can not race
with set_kthread_wants_signal(false).

BUT!!! I have to admit that I simply do not know if there is any arch

	set_bit(&word, X);
	test_bit(&word, Y);

which actually needs mb() in between, the word is the same. Probably
not.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists